Looks like a metro with high wings... will be interesting to see if this will really go forward. Having seen the limited success of the Twin Otter, Do-228NG etc in the market I´ve my doubts that the whole investment is really worthwhile.

Perhaps the 9 seater will have appeal with airlines like K5 or 9K.. They can operate these sort of aircraft profitably. I know 9K had their own replacement airframe in the design phase for the large fleet of Cessna 420s, but I haven't heard any update for a long while on that front.

Interesting. I should note that the L-410 is still in production. And then there's also this bird, a 9 to 14 seater made by Evektor just across the runway from the Let plant at UHE. The price is ca. $2.1 million and a MoU is already in place for the delivery of 9 aircraft to Russia's AeroGeo with an option for 20 more. There's also some talk of a Russian EV-55 assembly line for the local market.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 2):Having seen the limited success of the Twin Otter, Do-228NG etc in the market I´ve my doubts that the whole investment is really worthwhile.

It's quite obvious why these Western planes haven't been successful in Russia (and the USSR) in the past And their modern incarnations go for about $7 million a piece which is almost twice the price of this proposed 19 seater.

Anyway, UHE being my home airport, I sure hope this Diamond-Rostec thing ends up being a spectacular failure and that most operators will stick to the good old L-410 and the smaller EV-55

From what I understand, this will indeed be a pressurized 19 seater. Not sure about a lavatory but I guess that will be on as well, together with a galley.

I for one believe that a market does exists and if they manage to build a good machine, it will sell, worldwide, but quality, support and spares are of vital importance, besides the obvious being acquisition and ops costs.

Well this looks much sleeker than a 1900D so I'm sure it's more efficient. Now with Diamond involved, I would expect the price to skyrocket.

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 6):Perhaps the 9 seater will have appeal with airlines like K5 or 9K.. They can operate these sort of aircraft profitably. I know 9K had their own replacement airframe in the design phase for the large fleet of Cessna 420s, but I haven't heard any update for a long while on that front.

Actually Cape Air can't make turboprops work, too expensive to operate especially since they can't turn the engines off on short turns on the ground. That's why they're looking at a Tecnam twin piston.

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 14):The price sounds right, if they can actually meet it. I agree with other posters calling for a stretch, not a shrink.

Why, there are a lot of 9 seat EAS routes that could use a new airplane. Cape Air's 402's aren't getting any newer. I would wager today, there are more 9 seat aircraft in scheduled service than there are 19 seaters, within the US

Quoting JBo (Reply 4):but I wonder if we'll ever see them in the North American market.

I would think that ZK would be atop the list of carriers in the U.S. interested in these birds. ZK flies mostly the 19 seat Beech aircraft, and those are all getting so, so old. Also, on the blogs there are some rumblings that ZK will want to eventually be able to soon fly 9-seaters as well, as that could make a lot of new markets work for them.

Along with ZK, I could see a number of U.S. air taxi carriers interested in these birds, as well as Canadian ones. These birds also have the added ability for cold whether conditions, and seem quite attractive price-wise.

I would predict a very successful future for these aircraft if specs, price, etc. can all get together, for there is a commercial use for them worldwide to many less densely populated and remote areas around the world. And at present, no one else really seems to be focusing on the few-seats commercial aircraft market.

Quoting point2point (Reply 18):I would think that ZK would be atop the list of carriers in the U.S. interested in these birds. ZK flies mostly the 19 seat Beech aircraft, and those are all getting so, so old. Also, on the blogs there are some rumblings that ZK will want to eventually be able to soon fly 9-seaters as well, as that could make a lot of new markets work for them.

Great Lakes will be lucky to still be operating when the plane first flies. With staffing issues and the lack of ability to attract new pilots, they'll simple die away. Going to 135 operations with a 1900 isn't going to make sense either, because they'll get killed on cost when the EAS routes come up for bid.

Unfortunately, delays at the airport have killed off sub 250nm travel in the US. That used to be the 'bread and butter' for these aircraft. (Ok, routes to 300nm, but you cannot cut out the core and leave much else.)

Quoting Koosi (Reply 7): And their modern incarnations go for about $7 million a piece which is almost twice the price of this
proposed 19 seater.

I do not see how they could sell at those prices. If DIamond is able to make their claimed prices, these shall sell very well.

If there is a market ripe for a new airframe, it is the 19 seat market. However, a new entrant will have to prove itself.

Quoting point2point (Reply 18):I would predict a very successful future for these aircraft if specs, price, etc. can all get together, for there is a commercial use for them worldwide to many less densely populated and remote areas around the world. And at present, no one else really seems to be focusing on the few-seats commercial aircraft market.

For the 19 seater, I 100% agree. For the 9 seater, it is going head to head with all of the small jets and single engine charters... I am in the crowd to grow the plane, do not shrink it.

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 17):
The cost advantage for the nine-seater (half the capacity for a third off the list price - and op costs?) might not be worth it. Obviously, more data would help make the call.

And IIRC the 9 seater that Tecnam is developing is supposed to be in the $1.6 million range...it's a piston not a turboprop but 800k is quite a bit of difference.

Quoting point2point (Reply 18):I would think that ZK would be atop the list of carriers in the U.S. interested in these birds. ZK flies mostly the 19 seat Beech aircraft, and those are all getting so, so old. Also, on the blogs there are some rumblings that ZK will want to eventually be able to soon fly 9-seaters as well, as that could make a lot of new markets work for them.

The question is, where would ZK get the financing? They barely make any money as it is.

Quoting JBo (Reply 24):The question is, where would ZK get the financing? They barely make any money as it is.

ZK goes on the interest only plan, like they have been for the last 100 years or so with Raytheon, which is about the age of their 19-seaters right now.....

(okay, I know that Raytheon isn't involved with ZK anymore.... a joke here..... .... and the birds aren't quite 100 years old yet)

Nonetheless..... between ZK and the Russians, I would think that some sort of creative financing is in the lifeblood of both of these........

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 19):Great Lakes will be lucky to still be operating when the plane first flies. With staffing issues and the lack of ability to attract new pilots, they'll simple die away. Going to 135 operations with a 1900 isn't going to make sense either, because they'll get killed on cost when the EAS routes come up for bid.

I think a Russian-built craft faces a hard sell in the U.S. and Canada. IMO, it will take years of proving before they find a western buyer.

And as others have said, it looks like a Metro with a high wing, and doesn't look like it has a stand-up cabin. Very unpopular with flyers. I flew a number of Metro flights (as a passenger) and had to decide if I wanted to have my jacket on or off before boarding, as it was too hard to wiggle in or out of it on board.

I used to ground handle the original H.P. Jetstreams operating 1:20 hr flights, a flight attendant serving drinks but without a lavatory .... we were often handed an alternately-used sick-sack when opening the door. We also worked Cessna 402 and Piper Navajo flights of 1:30 hr scheduled (longer with circling over the fog or diverting), with some uncomfortable folks too.

Now if they were building a 30-seater with a stand-up cabin and lav, they might find more interest.

Quoting scramjetter (Reply 25):Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 21):
What is the little bump under the fuselage mid way down?

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 29):Now if they were building a 30-seater with a stand-up cabin and lav, they might find more interest.

Unfortunately, the market has been swayed from how things used to be. When the FAA moved 19 seat planes to 121 operations, it killed the ability to make any sort of profit with the airplane. So, the future holds 9 seats and less (135) or probably something the size of an EMB-120/Saab 340 to make a profit.

I cant imagine that the economics of the 19 seat market favors any new planes - unless you have a big EAS subsidy.

On the other hand, I think you can make a go of it once you reach the 30 seat market - something that used to be the stomping grounds for SF-340s, J-41s, DO-328s, and up to the limit of the DHC-8-100 and -200.

Its interesting to see how the 50 seat RJ has replaced 30 and 37 seats on so many routes. I wonder how many of these replacements are really profitable...

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 31):Unfortunately, the market has been swayed from how things used to be.

Quoting itrade (Reply 32):I cant imagine that the economics of the 19 seat market favors any new planes - unless you have a big EAS subsidy.

I have to ask here..... don't really know an answer to this myself....... but do fliers maybe avoid very small commercial aircraft such as 9-seaters and 19-seaters B1900s because of the age/conditions of such planes? Or is it maybe fares are so high that they are out of reach for most?

My thinking is that just MAYBE these new birds, if new and comfortable, can open up a lot of rural, sparsely populated markets that are within an hour of so of a major hub. Not only can maybe some O&D be developed, but folks out in backwoods America (and a lot of other places in the world) can save themselves a half day plus drive to get to their nearest airport of substance. There are a lot of places where either space, or terrain, can make for a lot of hard driving for people wishing to fly to a further destination. With these smaller planes, and if economics work, a lot of folks will now choose to fly to their nearest airport (that they would normally spend half day plus driving to/from) if there are nice, shiny, new and safe aircraft that has some sort of scheduling to it with some reasonable fares........ and then instead fly to the airport that they would drive to........

Just my thoughts, and again...... don't know what number there is of this type of air traveler, but maybe just enough to make these planes successful, as well as expanding commercial airline service to a lot of places that wouldn't have it......

Quoting point2point (Reply 36):I have to ask here..... don't really know an answer to this myself....... but do fliers maybe avoid very small commercial aircraft such as 9-seaters and 19-seaters B1900s because of the age/conditions of such planes? Or is it maybe fares are so high that they are out of reach for most?

My thinking is that just MAYBE these new birds, if new and comfortable, can open up a lot of rural, sparsely populated markets that are within an hour of so of a major hub. Not only can maybe some O&D be developed, but folks out in backwoods America (and a lot of other places in the world) can save themselves a half day plus drive to get to their nearest airport of substance. There are a lot of places where either space, or terrain, can make for a lot of hard driving for people wishing to fly to a further destination. With these smaller planes, and if economics work, a lot of folks will now choose to fly to their nearest airport (that they would normally spend half day plus driving to/from) if there are nice, shiny, new and safe aircraft that has some sort of scheduling to it with some reasonable fares........ and then instead fly to the airport that they would drive to........

Just my thoughts, and again...... don't know what number there is of this type of air traveler, but maybe just enough to make these planes successful, as well as expanding commercial airline service to a lot of places that wouldn't have it......

That was the role of commuter airlines, and will be again in the future.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 37):Not with any debt from flight school. And not anything more than just getting by. And it builds hours towards an ATP. And the new rules will make pilots hungry to build those hours.

No it doesn't build time toward an ATP, at least not at Great Lakes. You have to hold an ATP to sit right seat at Great Mistakes theses days, courtesy of the legislation that came after 3407.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 41):No it doesn't build time toward an ATP, at least not at Great Lakes. You have to hold an ATP to sit right seat at Great Mistakes theses days, courtesy of the legislation that came after 3407.

What is the minimum seat size with an ATP. I thought it was above 19. Or is it related to the airline certificate. This is a serious question.

What size aircraft may be flown with passengers sans an ATP? I"m not talking about one airline's policy. What is the largest that could be flow if someone were industrious and take advantage of all the loopholes?

That will (partially) determine the viability of these planes. Or perhaps pilots will just have to build the skills outside the USA. I would just like to know the scenarios.

Quoting CargoIT (Reply 39):For the 9 seater this could be a piston diesel that uses Jet-A or similar aviation fuel. This could be much cheeper to operate than older AVgas fueled planes.

Any part 121 operator, which almost every reginal is, are now required to have two ATP rated pilots in the cockpit, whether they are flying a Cessna 172 or A380.

My understanding is that back in the day, part 135 operators could operate scheduled "airline" service, more or less freely at will. However, due to an increase in accidents, legislation was changed that required those operators to acquire a 121 certificate in addition to their 135 ticket.

Part 135 operators can still do some scheduled service. However, they are limited to piston or turbo-prop aircraft with 9 passenger seats or fewer or a payload of 7,500lbs or less. They can also only fly up to 4 weekly scheduled round trips per destination.

So any scheduled flight under a major brand name is operating on a 121 certificate which requires two ATP pilots.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 44):Part 135 operators can still do some scheduled service. However, they are limited to piston or turbo-prop aircraft with 9 passenger seats or fewer or a payload of 7,500lbs or less. They can also only fly up to 4 weekly scheduled round trips per destination.

Thank you. That leaves little, if any, room for scheduled service for pilots without an ATP. Thank you for the detailed answer.

Quoting CargoIT (Reply 39):The article mentions diesel turboprop. For the 9 seater this could be a piston diesel that uses Jet-A or similar aviation fuel. This could be much cheeper to operate than older AVgas fueled planes.

Another article at Diamond's site suggests Austro Engine as the power source. They currently make a JetA-fueled diesel rated at 170 hp for light aircraft. I'm guessing it would need to be scaled up for the proposed models. The first five examples are to be built totally in Austria with subsequent production migrated in phases to Russia. The article wasn't specific about whether the two production-line concept will continue indefinitely.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 41):No it doesn't build time toward an ATP, at least not at Great Lakes. You have to hold an ATP to sit right seat at Great Mistakes theses days, courtesy of the legislation that came after 3407.

They ask for an ATP written and 750 hours so there must be a loophole.

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 46):Another article at Diamond's site suggests Austro Engine as the power source.

Austro Engine being owned by Diamond. They'll need a new engine for sure, one made to be used intensely on top of being more powerful.

Here int the US, the Cessna Caravan is widely used as a freighter. I think FedEx has over 200.
As a PAX airliner the Caravan has about 9 seats. The caravan has a braced high wing and is powered by a sngle PT6 Turboprop.

I fly for one of the pax caravan operators and a big issue for EAS cities when bidding we face is having 2 engines. I can see the need to replace the 9 and 19 seat aircraft but I don't see the feasibility at this point, at least in the US. 19 seats doesn't make much sense to me because of the airlines ability to staff. 9 seats doesn't make sense because no one knows what is going to happen to EAS in 2-3 years. This aircraft might be ok for emerging markets but other than that, I don't see it.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 35):Well personally I wouldn't mind. Then I looked up what Great Lakes offered, for an F/O, 16,24$/hour. Can you live with that in the US ?

With a 75-hour monthly guarantee, that comes out to $14,616 annually, before taxes. I make nearly double that as a ticket agent, so I'm not at all surprised that ZK is having trouble attracting pilots.

The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.